so what options you gonna use?

[cato12]

i tend to prefer my strategy games to play out semi-historical/plausible, im not a big fan of things happening exactly like they did everytime. if i want that il read a book or watch a movie.

the options we have in PON are interesting. it might be fun playin a game or two with all the default options on (SOI, force limits etc) but i reckon that will get old fast.

from my understanding, with SOI on countries will only colonize where they did historically so that sounds like an instant win when playin as GB for example. it also sounds like it could get very repetitive.

i like what ifs. what if france had made a serious play for india for eg.

maybe ive got it wrong. will there be some randomization even with the historical settings on or will things play out the same everytime?

id imagine the PON playerbase who have an interest in multiplayer will split into two groups. those who play strictly historical and those who like sandbox.

just interested to know what peoples thoughts are on this.

[Respenus]

the options we have in PON are interesting. it might be fun playin a game or two with all the default options on (SOI, force limits etc) but i reckon that will get old fast.

Well, don't forget the crisis system. From what I read from beta testers, they can make things quite interesting. The fact that there are certain limits, does not mean that you'll get the replay from the history books. If not for anything else, you have the knowledge of what is going to more or less happen. Imagine if France hadn't lost the 1871 war, how different Europe would be for the remaining 50 years.

[McNaughton]

i tend to prefer my strategy games to play out semi-historical/plausible, im not a big fan of things happening exactly like they did everytime. if i want that il read a book or watch a movie.

the options we have in PON are interesting. it might be fun playin a game or two with all the default options on (SOI, force limits etc) but i reckon that will get old fast.

from my understanding, with SOI on countries will only colonize where they did historically so that sounds like an instant win when playin as GB for example. it also sounds like it could get very repetitive.

The SOI is not based upon exactly what a nation managed to get, but, what was within its sphere of influence. Great Britain did not quite meet its dream of a 'Cape to Cairo' goal of control of Africa (basically a never ending line of red from Egypt to South Africa), due to the actions of the Germans claiming colonies along this path (they managed to get this only after WW1). Also, France had a dream of having an African colony stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans. Logically, either the British, or French (or neither given a meddling third party) can only achieve their goal, not both (given to get one you have to cross another).

So, SOI is not necessarily going to be quite as repetitive, but can see it is not quite the same variety as without the SOI. However, without SOI it could be much easier to avoid colonial conflict, as if any colony is prestige gain, you would probably be more inclined to go after a spot that is not going to be conflicting with an AI nation.

Basically, SOI sets up overlapping goals for the nations, without an SOI each nation is free to avoid conflict and still gain from colonialization (however, crisis and missions may serve to provide some conflict with colonialization even with SOI turned off).

i like what ifs. what if france had made a serious play for india for eg.

maybe ive got it wrong. will there be some randomization even with the historical settings on or will things play out the same everytime?

Even with SOI on, you can pretty much do as you choose, but, your gain in prestige (the tool you use to win Pride of Nations) will not be as great had you gone after what colonial missions your nation so desires. However, lowering another nation's prestige is somewhat equivalent to gaining prestige (i.e., to take from Great Britain, especially if they are the leading nation in prestige, is just as good as gaining prestige for your own nation).

id imagine the PON playerbase who have an interest in multiplayer will split into two groups. those who play strictly historical and those who like sandbox.

just interested to know what peoples thoughts are on this.

Pride of nations is not a strictly historic game, but somewhere between historic and sandbox (even with all rules applied, it is not following a specific event script). Your actions (succeeding or failing) will result in a different course of history in Pride of Nations, but following somewhat a logical system based upon payoff. Pride of Nations encourages you to do things that are 'historically plausible', and be rewarded through prestige.

Total sandbox, in some ways, does kind of water down the individual nations somewhat, making them a bit more 'similar' to one another. Having strong rules in place will allow you a completely different experience, when you switch nations.

Realistically, where your colonies are will not really make the game more exciting. What does add to the variety is when something goes awry, or off plan, and you suddenly find yourself in a great war in 1890 over some obscure colony in Africa because a crisis went wrong!

With SOI on or off randomness of how countries will react to situations will provide a variety of experiences from game to game, which are reflective of how countries react vs. exactly what territories are under control by whom.

Variation of play is experienced by switching nations (each 8 have very different options, interactions, and goals, and you do not always get the same missions from game to game, even with SOI on), but also gained when certain things change.

Just some things to take into consider when thiking about SOI.

[cato12]

food for thought indeed.